The Basics of Sound Government

It might seem strange that the Legislature is considering action to declare Idaho’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State sovereignty should be a given.

Yet, it isn’t. “Change” is the latest buzzword in politics; that’s what President Obama campaigned for when he ran for office and since he took office in January. He wants “change” in the political climate in Washington and “change” in how business is conducted.

Don’t get me wrong, change isn’t all bad. We go through constant changes in our personal lives and change is often good in politics. But when it comes to states’ rights and upholding something as sacred as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, then the kind of “change” the president is talking about is not healthy.

In my view, we need to get back to the basics of sound government – the blueprint put together by George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and other framers of our Constitution.

That’s why I am sponsoring a joint memorial before the Legislature. Idaho must send a strong message to the president and Congress reminding our national leaders that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. Unfortunately, over the years the states have become agents of the federal government. We are seeing those dynamics in the form of the Endangered Species Act, the management of wolves and other wildlife, No Child Left Behind, regulation of air quality and other measures.

It’s time for the federal government to back off and it’s high time for states to control their destiny. Idahoans are perfectly capable of solving Idaho problems. I totally resist the thinking that the president, the Congress and federal agencies somehow possess greater wisdom on issues as they affect states. I am opposed to the federal government’s practice of mandating certain actions by states under the threat of civil or criminal penalties, or loss of funding. The memorial seeks to stop that practice.

As legislators, we need to keep fundamental states’ rights in mind as we consider the federal stimulus package that recently was approved by Congress and signed by the president. Here are two big problems I have:

This package appears to be to be an outright assault on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

I cannot figure out how the nation can spend its way out of a recession. Part of the problem is extended credit, and the president wants to solve the problem by granting more credit. I don’t know of many people in District 2 who see that as a winning formula.

Idaho is scheduled to receive about $1 billion in federal stimulus money and the governor and others are trying to figure how much of that money can be used – and what kind of strings are attached with those federal funds. If the federal funds help plug some holes in the state budget, or delays larger-than-expected budget cuts in programs such as education, transportation or Medicaid, fine. But I’ll say “no thanks” if the money goes to federally mandated programs that Idaho does not need or want. I’ll say “no thanks” if receipt of those federal funds compromises states’ rights, or the provisions under the 10th Amendment.

11 thoughts on “The Basics of Sound Government”

Mr. Harwood,
You stated, that “If the federal funds help plug some holes in the state budget, or delays larger-than-expected budget cuts in programs such as education, transportation or Medicaid, fine.” Are you not aware that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
If we truly want freedom from federal interference then we have to refuse all federal funds unless they are to provide for constitutionally acceptable purposes as specifically defined in Article 1, Section 8. The three items you note are not included. They are usually supported by the bureaucracrats under unconstitutionally broad applications of the interstate commerce of general welfare clauses. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have clearly stated that powers or authorities that aren’t specifically allowed “… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Picking and choosing “acceptable poison” will still lead to the death of our Constitutional Republic. So either take a stand or lay down to the federal bureaucrats. You can’t do both!

The timing of this is interesting, as I was just discussing the topic of states’ rights versus federal authority with a friend of mind as it affects education. My friend and his wife are both teachers. I was taking the position of states’ rights.

He made the valid point that we have not taught a ‘state first’ curriculum in generations. You learn about your state, but the focus is on American history, and American politics. The news covers national politics more than local. Politicians talk about their ‘fellow Americans’. We can discuss how this came to be, but it remains true. It is symptomatic of a larger truth that our government and our culture in general has changed greatly in 222 years.

The law says arms can’t be restrained, yet nuclear weapons are arms. The law says we can’t have a standing army, yet we have hundreds of bases around the world. The law says Congress must print the money, yet they don’t. And the law says the federal government has no powers not specifically given to it, yet here we are with a 1 trillion dollar stimulus package.

We find ourselves caught between the rule of law and the de facto nature of our nation. But a nation that disobeys its own laws for convenience is not a nation so much as an organized crime syndicate.

This is why I believe we need to enact the clause in article 5 which allows for the calling of a convention for amending the Constitution. Enough states have requested one since the 1970s, for one reason or another, to qualify. A convention to pass a bill of amendments to update the Constitution to the modern era, and reaffirm its jurisdiction as the law of the land.

Amend the Constitution? The Law of the Constitution is not obeyed (by Local, State and Federal governments) now so what amendment could be added that would be honored?

The Constitution does not need to be amended; it needs to be â€œenforcedâ€ and many existing amendments repealed. Seems the People do not comprehend They are the Enforcer nor do They understand the power of enforcement delegated to Them by the Constitution; Article I, Section 2.

Allen, I agree that talk about amendments is foolhardy when the federal government doesn’t even follow it as it stands now. We need adherence to the constitution, or I think we’d be best off without this beast of a federal government.

Amend the Constitution by whom the powers that be today? no thanks I think it is just fine just the way it is. If we honored the Constitution we would not be in the shape we are in now it’s pure common sence something that has been lost in translation in todays times.

Thanks for your input but would you consider revising, or defining, your words a bit? We, as the People, are not the same as we, the government. As a matter of fact â€œWeâ€, the People, are not the government.

Those persons serving in government positions are the people who are required to take an Oath to support the Constitution; reference the last paragraph of Article VI, and we, the Citizenry, are obligated to â€œenforceâ€ the Constitution on those persons serving us in government elected positions. The Citizenry is the Employer (Boss) of elected government personnel and the only Entity with the constitutional power to hire them; reference Article I, Section 2. However, the Citizenry is the Boss (Employer) of government only as to who is elected and in no other way the Boss over government.

The elected take an Oath to support (obey) the Constitution, therefore, the Constitution is the Boss over government acts or actions. Ah, but why doesnâ€™t government obey (honor) the Constitution (Oath of Office)? Simply because We, the People, fail our Duty in Citizenship to â€œEnforceâ€ the Constitution. No law enforces itself.

No problem here, I think I understood your meaning. The opposition to a constitutional America is winning the war for the mind of Americans with words. However, you are correct â€œifâ€ government would honor the Oath of Office. It is clear to me that government never has wholly honored the Oath, even in George Washingtonâ€™s time. Government gets away with dishonoring the Oath simply because the People will not â€œenforceâ€ the Oath by voting to NOT reelect Lawmakers that dishonor it.

The maintenance of Constitutional America is the obligation of, not government, but the People and is as simple as stated above â€“ do not reelect known criminals to legislate (make law).

More simple done than said; Incumbent Lawmakers of the last 100 years, or so, have dishonored the Oath of Office, simply quit voting to reelect Incumbents. No Voter is obligated in any way to vote for anyone, pick a name from the phonebook and write it in on the ballot.

A vote cast for any reason other than the candidate honor the Oath of Office is a wasted vote. Thatâ€™s not my idea but it is the idea of the Founders and written in the Constitution in Article VI last paragraph*. Only the People (Voters) can hire, elect, Lawmakers to the House of Congress and do so every two years; Article I, Section 2.

The People not electing Lawmakers for the proper (constitutional) reason is precisely why we have an unconstitutional government created Democracy. Whether Voters will ever wise up or not is not my argument â€“ maybe Voters love their government created Democracy that is what they/we have today anyway.

Are we better off in this Democracy, you know with two cars (economy)? I think if government tended to its business and left the People alone Americans would have three cars.

The idea that government has created Americaâ€™s prosperity doesnâ€™t ring true to me. I think the formula of people willing to work and freedom and free enterprise created Americaâ€™s prosperity â€“ Labor creates Capital and Capital creates wealth.

Allan

*P.S. the last paragraph of Article VI requires all elected Officials and all Judges to take an Oath to support the Constitution and Voters cannot change or amend the Constitution.